LowEndBox - Cheap VPS, Hosting and Dedicated Server Deals

SpotVPS – $15/Year 128MB OpenVZ VPS in Chicago

Tags: , , Date/Time: July 1, 2011 @ 10:29 pm, by LowEndAdmin

SpotVPS Jacob from SpotVPS emailed me about some of their offers. SpotVPS is a budget brand of ComfortHost.net, which AccurateHub (featured here back in 2009) is now redirecting to. Their “Basic” plan starts at a price popularised by BuyVM$15/Year. At a very similar spec as well. Direct sign up link here.

  • 128MB guaranteed/256MB burstable memory
  • 10GB storage
  • 500GB/month data transfer
  • OpenVZ/SolusVM

Servers with Continuum in Lombard IL near Chicago (test IP: 74.117.237.218). ComfortHost/SpotVPS is currently owned by Foroquimica S.L. in Spain that boasts “10 year experience in hosting”. Here is the tl;dr version of ToS, i.e. “ADULT CONTENT, WAREZ, IRC are NOT allowed, event if it’s legal content”. Many other companies have attempted the $15/year price point, but few have succeed so far. We’ll see how SpotVPS is here for the long haul, or just quick money grab.

The original owner of LowEndBox known as "LowEndAdmin" or "LEA" for short founded LowEndBox in 2008 and created the concept of hosting applications on low resource "Low End Boxes". After creating the roots of the community that we know today, "LEA" stepped aside and allowed others to carry the torch forward.

80 Comments

  1. Another BuyVMish plan :)

    By the way, they use nLayer so good connectivity to Asia (layer3 works best for me)

    July 1, 2011 @ 10:40 pm | Reply
    • Another yearly provider :( With recent HostRail happenings makes you wonder these guys will still be around in a few months time..

      July 1, 2011 @ 10:57 pm | Reply
      • Right! this is a pretty unreliable market out there.

        July 1, 2011 @ 11:00 pm | Reply
      • That’s why I think we’re seeing so many of them come up, to try to snipe some of the failrail customer base :)

        Francisoc

        July 1, 2011 @ 11:04 pm | Reply
        • That’s why there are hundreds of people out there looking at a great build from a reputable provider who is making some secret plans and not feeding the vps-hunger of people :P

          July 1, 2011 @ 11:06 pm | Reply
        • Perhaps you should release some BuyVM stock and save them all? :)

          July 1, 2011 @ 11:10 pm | Reply
        • @Ixape well said :)

          July 1, 2011 @ 11:13 pm | Reply
        • We got a fairly large build underway, not sure how many people are waiting on us for it ;) The mailing list is pretty full but yea.

          Francisco

          July 1, 2011 @ 11:35 pm | Reply
        • KLIKLI:

          Hey Fran where can I subscribe to the the mailing list? I’ve been waiting tooooooo long for re-stock.

          July 2, 2011 @ 6:04 am | Reply
        • How much stock are you releasing? I’ve seen how many email addresses on the mailing lists and am worried all stock will go in a flash :(

          July 2, 2011 @ 11:15 am | Reply
        • @KLIKLI – You can subscribe using the links below.

          http://eepurl.com/daaLk < For OpenVZ services
          http://eepurl.com/eiriU&lt; for KVM services

          July 2, 2011 @ 11:19 am | Reply
        • @KLIKLI – You can subscribe using the links below.

          http://eepurl.com/daaLk < For OpenVZ services
          http://eepurl.com/eiriU for KVM services

          July 2, 2011 @ 11:20 am | Reply
        • Logain:

          According to ‘The great BuyVM build out!’ thread on LowEndTalk ( http://www.lowendtalk.com/questions/11038/the-great-buyvm-build-out ), they are going to release about 1000 of the 128 yearly plan and about 2000 others, followed up by some KVM offering. The 128 yearly plans are to be released in batches of two each week for all of July (and I’m rather starting to be worried as well, considering to go with 123systems for the increased chance :p).
          Hope that helped.

          July 2, 2011 @ 11:24 am | Reply
  2. pindank:

    just grab one, very good server, and fast support

    [root@teri ~]# dd bs=1M count=16 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync
    16+0 records in
    16+0 records out
    16777216 bytes (17 MB) copied, 0.171306 seconds, 97.9 MB/s
    [root@teri ~]# wget -O /dev/null http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    --2011-07-01 21:11:40--  http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    Resolving cachefly.cachefly.net... 205.234.175.175
    Connecting to cachefly.cachefly.net|205.234.175.175|:80... connected.
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
    Saving to: `/dev/null'
    
    100%[===================================================================================>] 104,857,600 26.9M/s   in 3.7s
    
    2011-07-01 21:11:44 (27.0 MB/s) - `/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
    
    July 2, 2011 @ 12:19 am | Reply
    • Can you post test results of the following?

      dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
      July 2, 2011 @ 12:22 am | Reply
      • pindank:

        as requested…

        [root@teri ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
        16384+0 records in
        16384+0 records out
        1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 11.5231 seconds, 93.2 MB/s
        
        July 2, 2011 @ 12:23 am | Reply
        • Thanks, that is fast :)

          How many cpu cores? (can you share output of ‘cat /proc/cpuinfo’)!

          July 2, 2011 @ 12:25 am | Reply
        • pindank:
          [root@teri ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
          processor       : 0
          vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
          cpu family      : 6
          model           : 26
          model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         950  @ 3.07GHz
          stepping        : 5
          cpu MHz         : 3066.787
          cache size      : 8192 KB
          physical id     : 0
          siblings        : 8
          core id         : 0
          cpu cores       : 4
          apicid          : 0
          fpu             : yes
          fpu_exception   : yes
          cpuid level     : 11
          wp              : yes
          flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc ida nonstop_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
          bogomips        : 6133.57
          clflush size    : 64
          cache_alignment : 64
          address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
          power management: [8]
          
          processor       : 1
          vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
          cpu family      : 6
          model           : 26
          model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         950  @ 3.07GHz
          stepping        : 5
          cpu MHz         : 3066.787
          cache size      : 8192 KB
          physical id     : 0
          siblings        : 8
          core id         : 1
          cpu cores       : 4
          apicid          : 2
          fpu             : yes
          fpu_exception   : yes
          cpuid level     : 11
          wp              : yes
          flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc ida nonstop_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
          bogomips        : 6133.32
          clflush size    : 64
          cache_alignment : 64
          address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
          power management: [8]
          
          July 2, 2011 @ 12:28 am | Reply
        • Thank you, good luck with your VPS. Keep us posted on the performance timely :)

          July 2, 2011 @ 12:32 am | Reply
        • cat /proc/cpuinfo is for $15/year package? :D

          July 2, 2011 @ 12:51 am | Reply
        • pindank:

          @BudgetVPS

          no it is for $2.99 per mo. I avoid to make yearly contract with so many cases these day :D

          July 2, 2011 @ 12:57 am | Reply
        • I have ordered one $2.99 from the first time, It was double at advert but they’ve fixed it already :P

          July 2, 2011 @ 7:34 am | Reply
        • Psss… I don’t think BudgetVPS is going to catch on like LEB.. js

          July 3, 2011 @ 9:42 am | Reply
  3. xiaocong:

    It is for $15/year :

    root@wafe:~# cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor       : 0
    vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
    cpu family      : 6
    model           : 26
    model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         950  @ 3.07GHz
    stepping        : 5
    cpu MHz         : 3066.787
    cache size      : 8192 KB
    physical id     : 0
    siblings        : 8
    core id         : 0
    cpu cores       : 4
    apicid          : 0
    fpu             : yes
    fpu_exception   : yes
    cpuid level     : 11
    wp              : yes
    flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmo
    pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx rdtscp lm con
    ant_tsc ida nonstop_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr sse4_1
    e4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
    bogomips        : 6133.57
    clflush size    : 64
    cache_alignment : 64
    address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
    power management: [8]
    
    July 2, 2011 @ 1:16 am | Reply
  4. Anyone got problem when install LowEndScript on their Ubuntu OS?

    July 2, 2011 @ 9:02 am | Reply
  5. Parallax:

    Another ignorant provider that bans IRC clients for absolutely no reason, I’m not gonna use them just on principle now.

    July 2, 2011 @ 1:45 pm | Reply
    • IRC opens a lot of security risks for providers which is why many don’t allow it.

      July 2, 2011 @ 4:57 pm | Reply
      • cd:

        security risks? such as…?

        July 4, 2011 @ 7:19 am | Reply
      • Spirit:

        We’re not in 1996 – 2000 anymore. No one cares for irc abuse anymore. Even the biggest IRC networks are pretty much idle, peacefull places. Yes, abuse can happens here and there, but it’s same as with everything in hosted industry. Your agrument is like “webhosting opens a lot of security risks for providers” only difference is that most hosts have no clue what IRC is and they use some old, ancient arguments without real understanding.

        July 4, 2011 @ 7:26 am | Reply
  6. rds100:

    I wouldn’t call banning IRC ignorant. It is risk reduction. Yes, there are many good users of IRC, but statistically a VPS used for IRC purposes is much more likely to receive DDoS than a VPS not used for IRC.

    July 2, 2011 @ 4:39 pm | Reply
    • vedran:

      Do you have any data to back that up? I’m just curious.

      July 2, 2011 @ 5:19 pm | Reply
      • rds100:

        I have nothing that i could share here, but trust me – i wouldn’t just be cutting possible revenue sources for no good reason :) (yes i am in the ISP/VPS provider busyness too)

        July 2, 2011 @ 5:46 pm | Reply
      • IRC can be a problem and it’s why we have auto nullroutes in place. We don’t have any ddos filters in place for the most part so if a customer wants to run on efnet/undernet and start being a headache and gets pounded, they aren’t going to bring us down over it.

        It can be a problem and it used to be one around here, but the autonull fixed that up.

        Francisco

        July 2, 2011 @ 7:54 pm | Reply
        • CPS:

          yeah, auto null-route is still the best way to prevent ddos things. i only reject IRC request if our provider not allowing this stuff running in their DC. :p

          July 3, 2011 @ 12:26 am | Reply
        • potential client:

          Hi Fancisco! I’ve left a question below (about RemoteSQL for loading IRC logs without any IRC bots on your server), here’s a mite more questions:

          Is there any software preinstalled on the VM, or am I left one on one with command line to install MySQL, appache, and otherwise fend for myself?

          Can I pay a little one time premium to get basic stuff (MySQL, appache, drupal, iptables settings, backup facilities of some kind) set up ?

          See, I’m no pro, just a guy tired of typical shared hosting shenanigans…

          July 3, 2011 @ 5:48 am | Reply
        • ^ Just to let you know Francisco doesn’t actually own this company – He’s just commenting on some software.

          July 3, 2011 @ 9:43 am | Reply
    • Parallax:

      You’ll notice I specified IRC clients, not servers. I can understand not wanting to deal with IRC servers but banning IRC clients is a cop-out IMO.

      July 3, 2011 @ 6:25 am | Reply
      • rds100:

        An IRC bot is also “an IRC client”, yet IRC bots can and often will be hit during attempts to takeover a channel for instance.

        July 3, 2011 @ 6:30 am | Reply
        • Spirit:

          NO ONE t/o channels anymore. Most IRC networks have chan/nick/auth services while those few half forgotten dinosaurs like IRCnet and EFnet aren’t even interesting anymore. t/o teams was problem… ages ago but nowaday no one cares…
          Big IRC networks are nowaday peacefull idle places with like… 10% of old population.

          July 4, 2011 @ 7:22 am | Reply
      • cd:

        You seem to be ignorant to the fact that most IRC networks mask IP addresses and hostnames now making it almost impossible for another user to DDoS someone. I thought I’d just point that out to you, rds100.

        July 4, 2011 @ 7:25 am | Reply
        • rds100:

          Yes, you are right, i haven’t used IRC for years so i don’t know what the modern trends are. I used to run one of the first IRC servers in my country (started around 1996 if i remember correctly) and then one of the very popular IRC servers in our country’s biggest network (UniBG) which used to be ranked very high by number of users worldwide at some time. So i have first hand experience of receiving IRC related DDoS, etc. I shutdown that server few years ago and don’t care about IRC anymore.
          And besides if the IRC networks now mask user’s IPs – why bother running through bouncers? Just connect directly from your PC? And why the need for channel bots, if there is ChanServ ?
          Anyway i have nothing against IRC, everyone is free to use his free time as he wants. But for various reasons i believe that less IRC related stuff in our network = less problems.
          And if you think that there is good busyness case in IRC related services just rent some dedicated at hertzner (or somewhere else) and start selling bouncers, this way you can both have your IRC fun and make some money.

          July 4, 2011 @ 7:45 am | Reply
        • rm:

          @rds100
          > if the IRC networks now mask user’s IPs – why bother running through bouncers?
          Because a bouncer allows me to connect into a channel from 3 different places (e.g. two desktops and a laptop) and still appear as one nickname AND have logs saved for the time I was offiline and displayed to me when I connect. Bouncers are NOT for IP masking/”protection” at all. Today it is one of their most minor uses. Major one is just convenience.

          > And why the need for channel bots, if there is ChanServ ?
          A bot can fetch and display titles for URLs people post, do search on google, respond about weather in various cities, run a quiz game (if you need that sort of thing), etc, etc. Again, it is not at all about DDoS/”war”/drama stuff, just some convenience and additional services you may want to have.

          July 4, 2011 @ 7:56 am | Reply
        • If the leaf is hosted on a VPS and users are masking, guess the next target for a DDOS is? There’s a reason efnet doesn’t have any sort of masking in place – “if you’re pissed at a user, deal with him/her yourself, leave our servers out of it”

          We had a client last year that was using eggdrops off a 128MB vps on undernet for channel holding/management – he had masking + a registered nick. Some users wanted his channel, so what they did was dropped the leaf the bot was on and wait for the box to sign back on and whois’d it before it identified. They now had the connecting IP and slammed it. The user got each IP nulled he had, causing us a fairly ugly network outage during it.

          If I remember right, Undernet only gives X to channels that have a certain amount of users in it.

          Francisco

          July 4, 2011 @ 8:04 am | Reply
        • Guys, lets take this discussion to LET because thats where we should be discussing it
          http://www.lowendtalk.com/questions/12936/irc-good-or-bad-and-why-hosts-ban-them

          July 4, 2011 @ 8:25 am | Reply
    • rm:

      Oooookay, let’s also ban E-Mail and WWW then!

      “I wouldn’t call banning E-mail ignorant. It is spam risk reduction. Yes, there are many good users of E-Mail, but statistically a VPS used for E-Mail purposes is much more likely to send spam than a VPS not used for E-Mail.”

      “I wouldn’t call banning Web Servers ignorant. It is a malware risk reduction. Yes, there are many good users of the Web, but statistically a VPS used for Web Server purposes is much more likely to distribute malware than a VPS not used as a Web Server.”

      July 3, 2011 @ 5:23 pm | Reply
      • rds100:

        I see your point :) But when a web server distributes malware – it affects other users on the internet that you don’t know. If a VPS is hit with a DDoS it affects you and your other paying customers – so this hurts you much more.
        Anyway there are different providers with different policies and everyone is free to choose a provider with policy that meets his needs. The customer always has the right to vote with his wallet, and the provider always has the right to not accept some customers.

        July 3, 2011 @ 5:32 pm | Reply
      • Agreed with @rds100

        @rm, I disagree with your point. You are comparing two different things. Most people use a VPS to host their websites that have outgrown the shared-hosting OR to get ease and flexibility of configuring your own webserver with your own rules

        Majority of the users use PHP, ROR, Python etc and I dont see any popular package requiring the user of irc. NO offense but how many %age of users use IRC these days?

        Besides, I believe we are hijacking a thread to discuss IRC which should not be the case, lets move this discussion over to LET.

        July 3, 2011 @ 5:50 pm | Reply
        • I use a VPS as they’re generally better spec’d than shared hosting offerings in terms of disk space and bandwidth.

          July 3, 2011 @ 5:59 pm | Reply
        • Spirit:

          Asim, you’re so wrong here. Specially in low end vps hosting community many people use VPSes for IRC. “Most people” argument might work in VPS world generally but not lowendbox vps world where vpses prices/resources fits perfectly for some irc client here and there.
          I can recognize here at LEB more than a few nicknames from various IRC networks.

          July 4, 2011 @ 7:34 am | Reply
  7. Days:

    I signed up for their Platinum $5.49/month. So far everything seems fine and their ticket response time is generally pretty fast, within 30-60 minutes.

    # wget http://cachefly.cachefly.net/100mb.test
    100%[======================================>] 104,857,600 38.5M/s   in 2.6s
    

    and

    # dd if=/dev/zero of=iotest bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync
    16384+0 records in
    16384+0 records out
    1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 12.4111 seconds, 86.5 MB/s
    
    July 2, 2011 @ 6:01 pm | Reply
  8. potential client:

    Hi!

    I have the following question:

    When you say “no IRC”, do you mean no IRC bots and IRC clients, or nothing pertaining to IRC?

    Because if I run an IRC bot (SNAIL bot or Lumberjack) on a separate shell / at home, and have said shell put the logs to a VM rented from you via remote SQL connection, would that violate TOS or not ?

    July 3, 2011 @ 5:35 am | Reply
    • I’m pretty sure this host wouldn’t mind if you was just putting logs onto the server – Most providers don’t like you having public IRC servers/clients where others are likely to DoS you.

      July 3, 2011 @ 9:44 am | Reply
      • Spirit:

        Wrong. Most LEB featured vps hosts allow IRC.
        Proof: from those top 6 “Best Low End Providers in 2011 Q2” listed names atleast 5 of them allow IRC.

        July 4, 2011 @ 7:38 am | Reply
  9. jerry:
    Benchmark Run: Sun Jul 03 2011 16:22:24 - 16:52:12
    4 CPUs in system; running 1 parallel copy of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       26271387.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                     3706.7 MWIPS (9.8 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                               4360.2 lps   (29.3 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        663917.0 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          176388.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1474055.7 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             1281487.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                 173891.5 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              12990.4 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                   8786.2 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   2441.7 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        1080448.0 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   26271387.9   2251.2
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0       3706.7    673.9
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0       4360.2   1014.0
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     663917.0   1676.6
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     176388.7   1065.8
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1474055.7   2541.5
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    1281487.0   1030.1
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0     173891.5    434.7
    Process Creation                                126.0      12990.4   1031.0
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4       8786.2   2072.2
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       2441.7   4069.6
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    1080448.0    720.3
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        1281.4
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Benchmark Run: Sun Jul 03 2011 16:52:13 - 17:21:15
    4 CPUs in system; running 4 parallel copies of tests
    
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables       94463250.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Double-Precision Whetstone                    14169.1 MWIPS (10.1 s, 7 samples)
    Execl Throughput                              14634.9 lps   (29.9 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks        468113.3 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks          115070.2 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks       1247727.8 KBps  (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Pipe Throughput                             4087459.8 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Pipe-based Context Switching                1253569.2 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    Process Creation                              44385.6 lps   (30.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                  24935.6 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                   3562.4 lpm   (60.0 s, 2 samples)
    System Call Overhead                        3715305.9 lps   (10.0 s, 7 samples)
    
    System Benchmarks Index Values               BASELINE       RESULT    INDEX
    Dhrystone 2 using register variables         116700.0   94463250.8   8094.5
    Double-Precision Whetstone                       55.0      14169.1   2576.2
    Execl Throughput                                 43.0      14634.9   3403.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks          3960.0     468113.3   1182.1
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks            1655.0     115070.2    695.3
    File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks          5800.0    1247727.8   2151.3
    Pipe Throughput                               12440.0    4087459.8   3285.7
    Pipe-based Context Switching                   4000.0    1253569.2   3133.9
    Process Creation                                126.0      44385.6   3522.7
    Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)                     42.4      24935.6   5881.0
    Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                      6.0       3562.4   5937.4
    System Call Overhead                          15000.0    3715305.9   2476.9
                                                                       ========
    System Benchmarks Index Score                                        2925.9
    
    July 3, 2011 @ 4:30 pm | Reply
  10. Why does this blog post contain a link to BuyVM? Because they were the first to offer a $15 VPS? Hardly reason I think. Why not a link to whomever offered the first virtual servers? Or to the first company offering OpenVZ?

    Frankly I’m getting a little tired of how this website is being constantly manipulated to pimp the product of BuyVM.

    July 3, 2011 @ 6:23 pm | Reply
    • Satellite:

      Seconding this. I was actually going to make a post about it, but it’s getting obscene how much this website is slanted towards BuyVM, even the mods keep kissing Francisco’s ass.

      July 3, 2011 @ 10:06 pm | Reply
      • john:

        Why not, they have best server, service, and they don’t go anywhere, most of so called ‘provider’ goes away. that’s why they’re trusted, very reliable, why don’t you try it?

        July 4, 2011 @ 1:16 am | Reply
        • pem:

          maybe because there’s no stock :P

          July 4, 2011 @ 5:01 am | Reply
        • circus:

          I don’t know about sleddog but for me it’s a matter of personal preference, it’s maybe stupid but I prefers to host with less noise providers ^_^ the more they try to pimped me the more I’ll stay away, even if they’re maybe a good host. I guess I’m a marketers nightmare type of person haha.. ^_^

          July 4, 2011 @ 7:34 am | Reply
      • We have mods?

        July 6, 2011 @ 10:04 pm | Reply
    • Like it or not its a fact. Why choose $15/yr? why not $20 or $17 or something like that? These are termed BuyVMish pricing.

      July 4, 2011 @ 5:50 am | Reply
    • Foobar:

      LOWENDBOX and LOWENDTALK is swamped with BUYVM workers who uses every opportunity to take on their competition

      Even the poll on Low End Provider was rigged by “someone” at buyvm

      Too many people from buyvm on this site — its not fair and balanced.

      Lowendbox have become a subsite of buyvm/frantech.

      Francisco Dias commenting on every thread and spam it with link to his frantech site and promoting his buyvm site.

      They are even allowed to create a thread on lowendtalk and promote their 1000 $15/year vps while others get their threads deleted by the same team from buyvm.

      The frantech/buyvm basically rules LEB and LET.

      July 4, 2011 @ 6:48 am | Reply
      • *grabs popcorn* Now this is amusing :)

        July 4, 2011 @ 6:51 am | Reply
      • The only thread i’m aware of that was deleted was the ones that were blatant selling, and even then it was done by the owners, not LEA.

        The only people on here that are from my staff are Aldryic & myself and we make it obvious, known :)

        Check the vote, we didn’t even vote ourselves up.

        Francisco

        July 4, 2011 @ 7:10 am | Reply
        • @Francisco I never knew I worked for you and even @LEA LOL. Thanks to these guys I now came to know :P

          July 4, 2011 @ 7:30 am | Reply
        • Nope. I just checked my payroll, and “Francisco” and “Asim” certainly do not appear there :P

          July 4, 2011 @ 9:05 am | Reply
    • Why does this blog post contain a link to BuyVM?

      Or does it?! The text “BuyVM” in the blog post is linked to the blog post where BuyVM first introduced their $15/year plan, which was quite popular back then (and I guess still is).

      Frankly I’m getting a little tired of how this website is being constantly manipulated to pimp the product of BuyVM.

      Or is it? Who else would you like me to “pimp”?

      If you look at BuyVM related posts they are a lot less frequent than some here, who tried to email me multiple times in a month trying to get their offers featured. I do have a BuyVM VPS (256MB at $3.50/month), although I have to say performance and stability-wise, it falls short of QuickWeb and eNSCloud that I use to host LEB/LET. I have also been quite public about their stability issues especially regarding to my node (commented here somewhere, can’t seem to find it).

      But they certainly excel in the affordability category, with “reasonable” stability.

      July 4, 2011 @ 9:01 am | Reply
      • I should just add, you’re on an L5420 and that’s due for a big face lift :) We’re aware that they aren’t the most amazing boxes for our OpenVZ operations, the L5520’s are beasts though.

        Francisco

        July 4, 2011 @ 9:13 am | Reply
        • @Francisco — CPU performance is not a big deal to me actually. It’s more of stability/uptime. My VPS has been up for 26 days now, which is good. However for a period of time it was rebooted everyday. Worse when it’s in the middle of doing some backup…

          July 4, 2011 @ 9:28 am | Reply
  11. Adam:

    I do not understand, does Buyvm have some kind of copyright on the price structure?

    Many providers on LEB has similar packages/prices for obvious reasons.

    I think its funny Buyvm has to hijack every thread and promote himself and his business.

    July 4, 2011 @ 6:36 am | Reply
    • Why be a copycat and steal someone’s plans / pricing stucture and with little to no modification present it to the people hoping that it would receive the same amount of reception and fare share?

      I have nothing against SpotVPS, who knows, they may be offering better IO/network/CPU then many of their competitors. What LEA and I was stating is merely the fact (and you cannot deny it) that the pricing structure was popularized by BuyVM/Frantech.ca …. we also call the pricing structure BuyVMish (now that it has been copied a lot many times).

      July 4, 2011 @ 6:44 am | Reply
      • Adam:

        IBM invented the first personal computer (PC) in 1981, does that mean we call every copycat computer made in China/Taiwan for IBMish?

        Maybe Buyvm introduced the price structure, but that was like a year ago, no need to keep pointing it out any more :)

        July 4, 2011 @ 6:58 am | Reply
        • To date, even its mentioned in the text-books that the first PC was invented by IBM and Microsoft and others copied afterwards. It is also clearly mentioned in the timelines that the first Windows was a copy of most of the features of the early “Mac”.

          Now that everyone can argue over what is and what is not, the facts never change. Like I said, who knows SpotVPS may have better hardware and big-resources for the price tag but still, a fact is a fact. It is nothing to take personally.

          Lastly, I think we are being troll here and hijacking a thread. Lets take this over to LET, shall we? I will create a topic there and we can discuss

          July 4, 2011 @ 7:49 am | Reply
        • July 4, 2011 @ 8:19 am | Reply
        • @Adam — even 30 years after IBM has created the first IBM XT with a 8088 in its heart, we still hear the term “IBM-compatible”. It was merely 10 months after BuyVM introduced their budget plan. You can’t fault people here from remembering who first offered VPS at that price point (and is still around, as RackVM’s 6GBP/Year offer obviously does not count).

          July 4, 2011 @ 9:24 am | Reply
        • Adam:

          @LEA Yes of course its fine to point out that the machine is “compatible” but would not make sense to keep calling DELL and HP etc copycats of IBM.

          Every small host and new should have a chance — today most threads quickly slides into talk about Buyvm and whether they have stock available.

          It’s fine to put a note about buyvm, but it is wrong when the threads turns into discussion about Buyvm and whether they have stock available and in this thread Buyvm promotes themselves by mentioning their their new server build and links to their mailinglists.

          Why would a potential customer want to give SpotVPS a chance when they can wait and get a VPS from BuyVM?

          July 4, 2011 @ 12:26 pm | Reply
  12. BuyVM isnt that great. I had it for rails hosting and it was unbelievably slow. My shared hosting accounts had exponentially better connection speeds. I’m not even exaggerating.

    July 6, 2011 @ 7:17 pm | Reply
  13. Franklin:

    Is it possible to use PPTP on this OpenVZ-thingy?

    August 21, 2011 @ 5:47 pm | Reply

Leave a Reply

Some notes on commenting on LowEndBox:

  • Do not use LowEndBox for support issues. Go to your hosting provider and issue a ticket there. Coming here saying "my VPS is down, what do I do?!" will only have your comments removed.
  • Akismet is used for spam detection. Some comments may be held temporarily for manual approval.
  • Use <pre>...</pre> to quote the output from your terminal/console, or consider using a pastebin service.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *